Jen -- Islam Media and the West

Being in our last year (and for many us our final semester) of study as Media, Communication, and Culture scholars we are all well versed in discussion over media representation, the power of media, and the media’s role in the global sphere.
While most of our class had several article topics in common each of us had our own way of coming to terms and interpreting the information.

While I found that the majority of our class was hesitant to speak up at times, I would not say that our perception, knowledge, or surprise of the representation of the Middle East, Islam, and Arabs is because we are naïve to it all, as we have all been taking MCC courses. What this course really brought to everyone’s attention is how marginalized and generalized Arabs, Muslims, and the Middle East have been represented, especially in the media. I think we have all become much more aware and not as dismissive when someone is allowed to make a derogatory retort or insult towards Arabs, the Middle East, and Islam. As much as the misconceptions over Islam and the Middle East are so prevalent in the daily headlines not much is known and who they are has been virtually ignored as no one takes the time to fully understand. What I have understood from my classmates’ blogs is everyone not only relying on particular news sources or one perspective, rather everyone at some point looked towards an “alternative” source to really add insight and a better rounded view on particular topics in order to reach a greater understanding.

There were several posts where people took the time out to explore topics they were curious about. I know Malini had one entry where she talked about famous Arabs and its true there are few I can name and I thought it was great how she followed up her post with some research she had found. This worked to not only bring awareness that yes, Arab Americas do exist in the American public sphere but also in the difficulty of compiling this brief list.

I also think everyone really realized the importance of the discourse between the different viewpoints people across America (and even globally thanks to Emily F’s global perspectives) hold. Emily C had a post about a girl she knew from home who is now married to a Marine and is adamant about the military staying in Iraq but she also included the public exchange between that girl and the other who responded and challenged her position just like the encounter Sarah L had when she posted the ‘Stop the Clash’ video and someone she knew told her she knows very little of the conflict. And Sarah even noted how the discussion turned out the way it did and the need at times for compassion to really see the person’s view. And Emily C’s post reminded us of the Western representations and stereotypes of ourselves and how within our nation and communities we are still conflicting over different views and standings on political and social issues.

Being that this course does deal primarily with media I thought Emma and Sara brought in great
contemporary examples with youtube videos about current programming and video currently circulating. I also enjoyed reading Lauren’s summaries of book readings she attended throughout the semester. I found all these to be great examples of really incorporating how different types of media and programming (tv, youtube, movies, books, etc) not just news agencies are discussing and portraying Islam and the Middle East.

I thought it was great how Mike brought in the examples of issues that continue to be ignored, the Muslims predicament in China to the fact that there are other societies that are generalized and ignored in our politics, like Russia. Sarah L also had a post about the devastation of Africa (the Congo specifically) yet that is not addressed in our major discourse, it’s just a tiny line on the NY Times page. I know people reflected that at times they felt they were coming across so cynical about the news, various conflicts, and America but I didn’t find it to be all focused on cynicism I really found that my classmates throughout the course were able to critically discuss and question the material that was coming our way.

Download file

I cannot believe we've reached the last week of class. And while it may seem that all my posts have come near the deadlines, I really have over the course of the semester taken extra time in questioning and exploring information I receive about Islam, media, the Middle East, and the West in comparison to the rest of the world.

While at times I have left class more confused than when I first entered and have been apprehensive at times to share my thoughts on topics relating to this course I found it is primarily because I was so misinformed. I cannot express how many times I have left class and thought to myself, "Damn, it is so much more complicated than I could have ever imagined" And in terms of blogging I remember thinking "Can I write about this? Do I really understand what I'm saying? Are my thoughts clear?"

Now I realize I am not the only one that has been misinformed. Just because someone reads the New York Times every single day or follows the Middle East headlines from the BBC report does not make them an expert. They definitely are well-informed and it doesn't hurt to keep up with these outlets and their reports but it's also important to see that the NY Times and the BBC are just a few of the news outlets available. Okay fine I may feel misinformed but I can do something about it, maybe it's better that I feel that way because then I question where the information is coming from and I seek to get as much of a well-rounded perspective on global affairs and no longer rely on just one source.

Also, that surprise of "Wow, they're just like us" has disappeared over the course of this semester. I think once the West can get passed that then they can further explore the real issues at hand and not just dwell on the misconceptions that are perpetuated on a daily basis.

Hopefully one day the West can see things from the perspective of the 'other'. Sometimes I think of the influence and power of the West, particularly the US. I think to the founding of America and how it all came to be with a revolution and breaking away from the English. It's interesting because our history textbooks praise this rebellious spirit but would we praise the rebellious spirit of say the Iraqis in which we currently occupy their space? Or the Palestinians if they were to organize in the spirit of the American Revolution. Going through history you see which turning points are celebrated as they have overturned injustices. The US always tries to make a point in the rights of women, like the liberation of women in Afghanistan when really women in the US have barely achieved many of their rights within the past century and even then it still continues to be a struggle. Sometimes I just find it so annoying how the US just toots its horn up on its high horse commenting and correcting the rest of the world. I know when I express some of these thoughts with my mom she always responds with, "You probably wouldn't feel this way about America if I would have raised you in Mexico" She's right, America does have great qualities and principles what gets me is when we try and enforce what works for us on to everyone else.

Ultimately I think it's important for people to realize the various perspectives and that there is always more than one side to every story. A lot of times we fail to place ourselves in the situation of others and we don't understand what other issues exists. We rely on the generalizations and representations that have been created and repeated. Hopefully one day the Middle East and Islam will not be portrayed with such negative connotations and there can be an end to the clash.

WIll there ever be a solution? I would like to think that one day there will be, but it seems there is such a long way to go.

Last year while studying abroad in Prague, I was an intern at Project Syndicate, a non-profit newspaper syndicate that distributes commentary from well-known economists, activists, Nobel laureates to members globally. The idea is that a piece can be written and that one story would be translated and distributed all around the world. I could be here in NYC reading Jeffrey Sachs's article just like people who read the Public Agenda in Ghana. (There are various interesting articles covering several global issues I definitely recommend when one has a chance to browse their site)

The reason why I bring this up is because they have a monthly series titled Islam and the World. November's installment featured Yasser Abed Rabbo's (Secretary General of the Executive Committee of the PLO) article, "Palestinian Hopes for Barack Obama"
Rabbo's commentary is about Obama's campaign for change has inspired those abroad, especially Palestinians who identify with the Civil Rights Movement in the US.
The article goes on with Rabbo outlining the 4 steps the US under Obama should take which include early engagement and finding ways to ensure that people comply with agreements (stop settlements) are a couple of examples.

I also read an article on Al-Jazeera about President Bush's final meeting with the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, as they are missing the target date for proposed peace accords. But according the Bush he feels the "vision is alive and needs to be worked on" That vision being a Palestinian state.

Most of the commentary is on how Bush's attempts are a little too late, which is probably why Rabbo noted that Obama should take early action as soon as he steps into office. Enough summary of these articles, the reason why I wanted to discuss these is because, for me, they are further examples of the many challenges that are going to arise over Palestine becoming an internationally recognized and established state. I say this because the US and Israel have a special relationship I mean we can't forget Sarah Palin during the debate, wasn't it that there's a special place in heaven for Israel. I don't think it's going to be easy for Obama to step right into office and place Palestine at the top of his agenda. Of course Bush would wait until the end of his term to get involved in Israeli-Palestinian relations because now his term is over and he can walk away and say nice parting words such as "the vision is alive" but there is nothing he can do it's on to the next guy. I really do hope Obama can bring some changes and do something about Palestine, but I know it's not going to be easy. It's sad that people cannot see the awful living conditions and treatment of Palestinians, everyone just sees them as terrorists and plotting the next place to bomb (I actually had a friend who said maybe things would get better for them if they stopped killing innocent people and bombing all the places they go to, believe me it was a VERY intense debate). If people, especially Americans have those sentiments how will they react if Obama (who was accused of having Muslim ties as if that were a bad thing) were to sympathize and take huge steps toward the progress of a Palestinian state. These are the things I think of and I hate that I sound so pessimistic. Hopefully we can finally see the beginnings of Palestinians receiving fair treatment and equal rights, just like the Civil Rights Movement, it will take a lot of time. But how much longer can people wait? A lot of times I feel the violence and altercations just intensify because people cannot take their situation any longer and the cycle continues and passes along to younger generations. Hopefully some huge steps towards progress can happen soon. As much as I whole-heartedly support Obama I don't think it should all be placed on him, if you think about it everyone is expecting him to change everything about that world, I guess that's the problem on running on a platform of change and it makes me nervous that people will place such pressure on his upcoming term (but that's a whole other issue).

I will wrap up this post with Rabbo's closing paragraph:

"Our Declaration of Independence is now twenty years old. The Arab Peace Initiative has been collecting dust for over six years. Palestinian patience is not infinite. Some have already resigned themselves to believing a viable Palestinian state will never emerge. Others, like me, argue that we must not lose faith. But if we are to realize our dream of freedom and statehood -and prove the cynics wrong- we will need President Obama’s help."

Project Syndicate Article:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rabbo1

Al-Jazeera English Article:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/11/200811252372123312.html

I found this article on Al Jazeera English: "A US court has convicted a Muslim charity and five of its former leaders on 108 charges in the largest "terrorism" financing trial in US history."
The trial went on in a Texas court (go figure) and the charity, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was shut down in December 2001, Bush declared this as "another step in the war on terrorism".
As soon as I saw the date they were shut down I immediately thought of the time period when American Muslims were subjected to interrogation, homes were raided and people arrested for their "terrorist connections". Already it was hard for me to believe or accept the crimes this group was charged with. It also didn't help that a former US state department official testified he was never told Hamas "directed" the group during intelligence briefings. But the charity's connection to Hamas was confirmed by an unidentified Israeli witness. I don't know if there are more details to the case but from what it sounds like I just think they were suspected as threat during the December sweeps and then instead of going back the US went further to make them an example that what they were doing was wrong and would be penalized.

Here is what the group was charged with funding:
"Prosecutors said the charity was spreading Hamas's ideology by funding schools, hospitals and social welfare programmes controlled by the group in the Palestinian territories, and permitting it to divert funds to the activities of fighters.

However, the charity's supporters said the government was politicising the case as part of its so-called war on terror and ignoring the foundation's charitable mission in providing aid to the poverty-stricken Palestinian territories."

I could understand if there was specific proof that certain funds were sent and used for violent crimes. I guess the problem was that the schools and hospitals and social welfare programs that benefited from the funds were controlled by Hamas. At the same time, with such little being done for Palestinians should one be critical of where their money goes because it is run by Hamas? Should I not donate money to help rebuild a school or hospital because it is sponsored by Mormons and I do not agree with Mormon ideology? Okay, Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization by the US, but I find that whole declaration confusing. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I always learned of Hezbollah and Hamas as these violent, extreme terrorist groups, I didn't know they were political groups with social agendas. I guess for Americans their organization is unique and easily misunderstood but at the same time not properly examined or represented to Western audiences.

I may be naive about this whole thing. I could be giving these groups far too much credit and neglecting several awful extreme things these groups have done. That is exactly my point, that I really don't know all there is to know about Hamas. Especially since there are such varying viewpoints on it so how do I know what to believe?

Article:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/11/20081124212126642596.html

I know we will be covering Hezbollah in class on Monday, but I thought I would do some research on it before then. (So some of my thoughts may be incomplete and questions answered as I may not get the full scope or understanding of Hezbollah)

Before this class all I knew about Hezbollah is that it was a terrorist organization. No idea that it was the "Party of God" with not only military but political interests and pull.

According to the BBC's short profile on Hezbollah, the US has deemed it a terrorist organization, while Britain deems the military wing with terrorist ties, and Beirut recognizes it as a "national resistance movement". It makes me think, Hezbollah has participated in radical acts should those be overshadowed by the social service programs they have provided to Lebanon?

On November 20th, as part of the NY Times Generation Faithful series, the article "Hezbollah Seeks to Marshal the Piety of the Young" was published. I'm sure other people in the class have written about this article so I'll quickly summarize it and then get to my point. The article focused on the indoctrination of the Mahdi Scouts. Compared in the beginning to the Boy Scouts the difference is these young men are being trained ultimately for the Hezbollah cause. What was interesting is how the article noted that not everyone is clamoring to join Hezbollah and the Mahdi Scouts, that there are practices some frown upon or conflicts of interest.

I guess if I were someone reading this without any prior knowledge of Hezbollah or of Lebanon, I would perceive these camps as indoctrinating the youth to militant beliefs. One of the first things mentioned is how the boys wear a tiny picture of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the article repeatedly mentions how the organization is secretive and allows few outsiders in or divulges limited information. The program is also heavy in religious and moral instruction with books featuring chapter titles such as "Know Your Enemy" "Loyalty to the Leader" and "Facts About Jews". Even the portrayal of the young woman leader "with the direct gaze and passionate manner of an evangelist" preaching to the young girls about the importance of the hijab, and described as marrying early and having a child before she was 17, set the tone of this conflict between modern society and the religious backwardness going on in the camps.

I have found that is the difficulty in appropriately representing the Middle East an Islam in the Western media. The role of religion in politics and life is different from that of the West, not any better or any worse, just different. The Western view is that politics and life should be secular (although in my opinion I think Westerners like to think its secular but if it ever leans towards religion or if there is a mention of a higher power it better be Christianity and God but that's just my feeling towards it) As we have learned in this class, while not every country in the Middle East are conducted under Islamic law, Islam does have a large influence on politics and life. While this article and series is trying to explore the younger generations coming into age and conflicts between their religion and modern culture I don't think it appropriately frames the context of which Hezbollah has legitimate political say in Lebanon. Instead the focus is on these youth camps that not only preach religion but moral and political leanings and they're secretive of their operations, it's not a pretty positive portrait.

Article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/world/middleeast/21lebanon.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

The violent acts in Mumbai have been covered all over the news. I've been trying to follow it and find different sources and outlets covering the situation. While I think this incident is terrible as no one deserves to experience these awful acts, what made me cringe was I could already imagine the form of the discussion of this incident. The terms terrorists, terror attacks, Islam extremists, violence against Western targets and Jews, plot, anger against the West, have already been brought back into our vocabulary and will be in people's minds for the next few weeks.

As the story was developing, the one consistency in the headlines was "terrorist" It was already deemed a terrorist attack and by that I mean all the connotations that come along when one hears the words terrorist attack. For the past 8 years fear has continuously and repeatedly appeared in public discourse. I almost find that when there isn't a large "attack" fear rests in the back of everyone's mind but as soon as something like Mumbai happens it resurfaces and takes over and becomes what everyone can think of, or what everyone begins to fear and doubt and voice concern over. As soon as I learned about Mumbai that was a primary thought that crossed my mind, everyone fearing terror and letting the fear turn into anger and blame for the acts.

As the investigation begins, I almost feel like the story has been framed towards who is to blame. The places that were taken hostage are symbols of Modernity, the people taken hostage and killed were "Western" and Jewish. The other comment I read across various outlets, is the attackers were dressed in blue jeans and t-shirts what is associated with the west and modernity. So is it really a war on modernity? Or is it a feud against economic disparity? Honestly I think it is a whole range of reasons and the root of it being these groups don't care about others. If they're fighting for the advancement of Muslim rights they don't care than an event like this is going to add fuel to the fire and set back future efforts. They don't care about Western perceptions. It's bad because the media uses the word terrorist attack and it conjures thoughts of Islam extremists and fundamentalists the instability of those "other" countries, and further perpetuates the misconceptions and generalizations made about the Middle East, Islam, and now India.

Also, on Wednesday, November 26, 2008, American born Bollywood actor, Imran Khan wore this shirt to "The President is Coming" film premiere in Mumbai. I felt it necessary to post along with this entry not because I think the Mumbai attacks signify an Islam vs. West clash/altercation but at how the term "terrorist" has taken form and the connotations that come along with the term. Here is Khan wearing a shirt declaring President Bush as an "International Terrorist" while at a premiere in a city being attacked by "terrorists"

This weekend the Museum of Islamic Art opened in Doha, Qatar. While it didn't have a fireworks spectacular that could be seen from space like the opening of the Atlantis resort in Dubai, the opening of the last statement building by I M Pei, made the news in several publications and that is how the event caught my attention.

This is taken directly from the BBC article but similar statements were made in the NY Times, NY Mag, and the website for the museum itself:

"The hope is that - like hosting a Grand Prix or buying a football club - a fabulous collection of art will bring prestige, attract tourists and create a brand."

On one hand I think it's great for there to be a museum of this caliber dedicated to Islamic art. It should not be odd that everyone is gathering in Qatar for this opening. The post about this opening on NY Mag's Daily Intel blog, claimed it may signal an end to the "Bush era 'Clash of Civilizations'" and went on to list all the collectors and people from the Met, Sotheby's, Christie's in attendence and contemporary artist Jeff Koons was there for inspiration. Already the museum is off to a great start in achieving their "branding" goal if they can attract these big names. However, I do think many of these people attended because the building was designed by I M Pei, but that was probably why I M Pei was sought out for the design in the first place.

Another theme I found from all the articles was reconnection.
From the NY Times:

"Viewed under the light of a spectacular evening fireworks display, the museum’s colossal geometric form has an ageless quality, evoking a past when Islamic art and architecture were a nexus of world culture. At the same time it conveys a hope for reconnecting again."

The BBC mentions that the museum's curator and the majority of the staff is British, but they also quote a Saudi artist-photographer who calls on the lack of research on Islamic art and that there should be a "reawakening".

And hopefully this can be a start to opening up the forum for that research and establishment of artistic contribution. I think what makes me weary about this project is the museum achieving its various goals. They want to establish themsleves as a brand, a spectacle yet also as a center for education and research of Islamic art. I am curious to see if the museum can become an educational and research center. I think they are on the right track to accomplishing their exterior, superficial goal of attracting visitors to the Pei landmark, as a site that needs to be seen. I'm interested in seeing if they can attract visitors because of the information and research and not just because of the photo-op to prove to one's friends back home of the trip to the Middle East.

I do find it important for different parts of the world to be considered cultural capitals especially since culture is ambiguous and consists of various elements. Now in thinking about this topic and reading these articles I am thinking of what exactly I consider a cultural capital. Just because this museum was designed by a prominent, note-worthy, respected architect and filled with expensive, extravagant works and attracts high-profile members of the art-world is that what establishes Doha and the museum as a cultural capital. I want to say that more needs to be done but then I look at other global "cultural capitals" and see that Doha and the Museum of Islamic Art is following the example of what others have done in establishing themselves. I don't want to discredit the research and contributions of the cultural capitals but as of late art has really become about the names and the brand and the spectacle. So hopefully the Museum of Islamic Art and Doha can take on a large role in redefining the cultural capital and really contribute groundbreaking research and history.

BBC Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7744586.stm

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/arts/design/24muse.html

NY Mag: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/11/museum_of_islamic_art.html

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I really want to visit Dubai. My interest began last year when a group in my Marketing class presented a profile on the UAE with their primary focus on Dubai and Abu Dhabi. All the extravagance, the large ex-pat population, the beach, the buildings, it was overwhelming and exotic. Then this summer, working in the Office of the Provost I worked alongside the NYU Abu Dhabi team, and I considered applying for a position after graduation (and am still considering it). My main point is I am fascinated with the UAE, particularly Dubai and Abu Dhabi as these two sites are furiously working to become the best financial and cultural capitals.

Then we had that lecture with Mohamed on Dubai and I began to think about what Dubai truly means and stands for. Is there so much spectacle to keep us distracted from the underlying issues? Why must they strive to be the best just because they need to be the best and as soon as possible. I remember Mohamed was actually quite surprised by our first responses to what we think of when we hear Dubai, that they were all positive. I think that's because our generation is the recipient of all those messages marketing Dubai as an oasis, a place filled with money, superiority, luxury, and where you can strive for bigger and better. If you think about it, when recent grads try to decide their next move it's either you enter the working world or you take time off and travel and explore and Dubai is portrayed as a place where you can slave away at your job but then kick back in paradise. It's almost the perfect balance between the two worlds young professionals and recent college grads find themselves in...or so it seems to be the ideal place. I am starting to think that my concept of Dubai is that just an image and construct of what should be deemed an ideal paradise.

Today during my lunch break I read the NY Mag article on Dubai and I have to say it annoyed me. One was the representations of Americans. From the girls they interviewed, the blonde American with her Southern drawl getting such positive attention, good thing she didn't pursue another "lame" job in the States because like she is now in the like Middle East, but it doesn't feel like the Middle East, it's like New York but omg she's in the Middle East! (sorry for that slight rant there) After reading just that first page I thought seriously these are the airheads making money in Dubai?

Then there is Layla, the Columbia grad, I laughed when she talked about the poor service at bars, restaurants, and taxis. I thought that's life everywhere but America, because only Americans preach "The Customer is Always Right". Customer service is not highly valued around the world. Sure it can be hard getting used to different customs, especially since in Dubai there really is no dominating set but I always believed that is what comes with living abroad. To learn and see life as other, on the outside, I think it can teach one lots about how to interact and respect others, but obviously those Americans in Dubai just hang out together and drink with one another (haha, seriously this article makes their life one huge party)

Not to sound corny but I would think Dubai could have the potential to be this city as a symbol of globalization and the emergence of what is to come between global relations. Just like the architecture in a sense lacks a sense of origin (is it original or copied or a replication or representation...) the population consists of people from all over the world. The final thought on the article is that these people just pass through. No one plans on staying in Dubai, especially Americans, they're only there because the American economy has taken such a huge turn for the worse. At the end I think typical portrayal of Americans they just go where the money is, take advantage of all they can get for themselves and then move on to the next better thing.
I don't think Dubai can establish itself as a solid capital if no one settles and truly invests their time to living in Dubai. In thinking of cities all around the world a large part of their development is due to the people that settle there. For example Los Angeles is a younger city than New York but it has history and generations of people settling and contributing to the growth of the city.

Or I could be wrong and it may just continue to keep growing and expanding as people move out as they get older and newer, younger generations move in to make their money. In those terms I just think of how much abuse goes on here, not only in the service workers but the land and city itself. It's just being used for benefit and profit. No true concern is going in to this growing project (or towards the rights and well-being of the working class)!

Some days I just leave class or finish a reading and feel even more confused than before. Not confused because I don't get the material but confused about what to think or what can happen in the topics we discuss in class. And then when I try to verbalize these thoughts or opinions they come off as a rambling, cyclical procession of questions. It just continues, because for most of my questions I could find answers but they could just as easily be disputed.

None of the conflicts can be simplified they are caused by so many varying and complex factors that it's hard to grasp an ending point any time soon. Justly so, each side has their beliefs, what they believe is "right" and their own reasoning for what should happen but when people are so set in their ways how can a compromise ever be reached?

For example, there was a scene (well there were several but this one specifically) in Control Room, where one of the managers for Al-Jazeera is questioned about their airing of images of dead and captured U.S. soldiers. The interviewer tells the manager that Al-Jazeera does not have objectivity, that they obviously are picking a side for the war, so she asks her are you picking sides? The manager responds with a question and that it, "Are any U.S. broadcasts objective?" I thought it was a great point that she brought up but the interviewer just did not get it. War is not an objective subject. When the US is reporting on it what will be "good news" is whatever the US does that brings them closer to "victory" (I don't like thinking of victory or winning as ending terms for war). But for a war to be covered objectively the public would have to see it from the perspective of both sides.
Or when the press spokesperson for the U.S. makes that comment that Al-Jazeera is popular because it promotes Arab Nationalism, but it's bad that "Arab nationalism has to include anti-Americanism" After I heard that I wrote in my notes that I could not believe that he does not see how American media promotes American nationalism at the expense of Arabs.

It's situations like this where I think how can people reason with one another? Not just in terms of Arab and American relations because even within the American sphere (conservatives vs. liberals for ex) there are similar conflicts in beliefs and ideologies. Maybe it's just human nature where we don't take the time to reflect upon ourselves and recognize our faults. It is frustrating and a lot of times I find myself just going in circles discussing these issues.